Opinion: America once fought a war against poverty – now it wages a war on the poor

[bcking 3,157]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So do you know why the authors quoted 140 million people living below the poverty line (almost 43% of Americans) when the official data says it is only a little over 40 million (approximately 13%)?  Another one is the authors quoting 43% of children living below the poverty line with the official data showing 18%?  Seems some pretty big facts that should have been checked however it is an opinion piece, so maybe they forego fact checking for those.

He doesn't actually say that 140 million people live below the poverty line. He says 140 million people live in poverty. That is a slight difference but I think important in elucidating what he means. I agree though that he should have been more clear in the article.

 

Poverty can either be defined by the official designation (which the data you linked to would highlight) and in that setting would have a firm "line" to define people "in poverty", or by a more subjective and possibly more fluid definition of poverty. Many people have argued that the actual cut off for "poverty" that is official isn't high enough and needs to be updated. Or to make it even more complex - should there be regional poverty lines because the amount of money required to live may be different from one place to another. Even the government in several cases recognizes that people that sit just above that line can still face extreme hardship. Hence why many cut offs for assistance aren't the poverty line but are "150% of the poverty line" or some other random number above the official poverty line.

 

There is a link to a longer document from, I presume, the campaign that this guy works for/on (https://poorpeoplescampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PPC-Report-Draft-1.pdf)

 

In it they say:

 

"Since the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign, the number of Americans in poverty has increased by 60% to 40.6 million" - So they still clearly recognize that the number below the actual poverty line is "only" 40.6 million and not the whole 140 million the guy quotes.

 

Then further on they say:

 

"More than 95 million Americans (nearly 30 percent of the total population) are either in poverty or considered “low-income” (below twice the poverty line), using the Official Poverty Measure. That number rises to 43.5% (over 140 million people) when using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which takes into account federal assistance resources as well as critical out-of-pocket expenses."

 

They provide a link for the SPM - https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/supplemental-poverty-measure-better-measure-poverty-america

 

"In the early 1990s, Congress commissioned a panel of experts from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to address key shortcomings of the official measure. In early 2010, the Obama administration adopted the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) that largely follows the methods recommended by the NAS Panel. 

Following the Panel’s recommendations, the SPM defines poverty as the lack of economic resources for consumption of basic needs such as food, housing, clothing, and utilities (FCSU). To determine family resources, gross money income from private and public sources is supplemented with benefits such as food stamps, housing subsidies, and tax credits. Deducted from family income are medical out-of-pocket expenses including health insurance premiums, income and Social Security payroll taxes, child support payments, work-related expenses and child care costs.

Instead of using a food plan, the SPM poverty thresholds are based on expenditures on FCSU plus a small amount to allow for additional expenses. These thresholds are further adjusted for different family sizes and compositions, housing status, and geographic differences in housing costs (Short, 2012)."

 

Here is a comparison between the official line and the supplemental measure "calculation" - 

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,499]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

He doesn't actually say that 140 million people live below the poverty line. He says 140 million people live in poverty. That is a slight difference but I think important in elucidating what he means. I agree though that he should have been more clear in the article.

 

Poverty can either be defined by the official designation (which the data you linked to would highlight) and in that setting would have a firm "line" to define people "in poverty", or by a more subjective and possibly more fluid definition of poverty. Many people have argued that the actual cut off for "poverty" that is official isn't high enough and needs to be updated. Or to make it even more complex - should there be regional poverty lines because the amount of money required to live may be different from one place to another. Even the government in several cases recognizes that people that sit just above that line can still face extreme hardship. Hence why many cut offs for assistance aren't the poverty line but are "150% of the poverty line" or some other random number above the official poverty line.

 

There is a link to a longer document from, I presume, the campaign that this guy works for/on (https://poorpeoplescampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PPC-Report-Draft-1.pdf)

 

In it they say:

 

"Since the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign, the number of Americans in poverty has increased by 60% to 40.6 million" - So they still clearly recognize that the number below the actual poverty line is "only" 40.6 million and not the whole 140 million the guy quotes.

 

Then further on they say:

 

"More than 95 million Americans (nearly 30 percent of the total population) are either in poverty or considered “low-income” (below twice the poverty line), using the Official Poverty Measure. That number rises to 43.5% (over 140 million people) when using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which takes into account federal assistance resources as well as critical out-of-pocket expenses."

 

They provide a link for the SPM - https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/supplemental-poverty-measure-better-measure-poverty-america

 

"In the early 1990s, Congress commissioned a panel of experts from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to address key shortcomings of the official measure. In early 2010, the Obama administration adopted the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) that largely follows the methods recommended by the NAS Panel. 

Following the Panel’s recommendations, the SPM defines poverty as the lack of economic resources for consumption of basic needs such as food, housing, clothing, and utilities (FCSU). To determine family resources, gross money income from private and public sources is supplemented with benefits such as food stamps, housing subsidies, and tax credits. Deducted from family income are medical out-of-pocket expenses including health insurance premiums, income and Social Security payroll taxes, child support payments, work-related expenses and child care costs.

Instead of using a food plan, the SPM poverty thresholds are based on expenditures on FCSU plus a small amount to allow for additional expenses. These thresholds are further adjusted for different family sizes and compositions, housing status, and geographic differences in housing costs (Short, 2012)."

 

Here is a comparison between the official line and the supplemental measure "calculation" - 

 

Thanks for the analysis.  So it appears the author is using statistics that clearly suit their narrative. 

[bcking 3,157]

Oh and as for the 'data' for the following statement -

 

"Since the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign, the number of Americans in poverty has increased by 60% to 40.6 million"

 

I'm struggling a little bit here. Another article I found (as a link on the SPM article website) had this chart (https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states)

 

 

If the poverty rate was say 23% in 1960 (Roughly from the graph), that would be around 41 million people back then (US population in 1960 was 180 million). 

 

That would mean the actual total number of people under the poverty line is about the same. I can't seem to find numbers that make the "Increased by 60%" work out.

 

Also that graph would not seem to support their number of 140 million using the SPM measurement. According to that article, the SPM measurement produces a poverty level of 14%, up only 1.3 percent from the official level of 12.7%

 

So their data continues to be strange...

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Thanks for the analysis.  So it appears the author is using statistics that clearly suit their narrative. 

Initially I actually thought it was perfectly fine. The SPM seems to be a measurement that was well thought out, and well designed. I pulled up the original citation for it but I haven't looked through it yet. To me it seems completely reasonable to have a poverty line that is adjusted for cost of living and other factors. The factors the SPM takes into account all, at face value, seem appropriate. So in that sense to me it would be more like the narrative suits the model. If the SPM calculation really produces a number that high, that is worrisome.

 

That being said though, when I dug more into the Poverty Research Center website (which has the information on the SPM), I can't seem to find data that fits their 140 million measurement using the SPM. See my post above. The SPM measurement seems to produce a number that is only 1.3% higher than the official line...not the massive drastic increase.

 

So again either they are just being intentionally misleading (which you seem to assume they are), or they have some other explanation but I haven't found it yet. I'd still give them the benefit of the doubt, though I agree again from the beginning it should have been clear. 

[Dashinka 24,499]

21 minutes ago, bcking said:

Initially I actually thought it was perfectly fine. The SPM seems to be a measurement that was well thought out, and well designed. I pulled up the original citation for it but I haven't looked through it yet. To me it seems completely reasonable to have a poverty line that is adjusted for cost of living and other factors. The factors the SPM takes into account all, at face value, seem appropriate. So in that sense to me it would be more like the narrative suits the model. If the SPM calculation really produces a number that high, that is worrisome.

 

That being said though, when I dug more into the Poverty Research Center website (which has the information on the SPM), I can't seem to find data that fits their 140 million measurement using the SPM. See my post above. The SPM measurement seems to produce a number that is only 1.3% higher than the official line...not the massive drastic increase.

 

So again either they are just being intentionally misleading (which you seem to assume they are), or they have some other explanation but I haven't found it yet. I'd still give them the benefit of the doubt, though I agree again from the beginning it should have been clear. 

I think like many, they are using numbers to support their narrative.  I know this is an opinion piece which like many others want to promote their "goodness" in showing that there is still poverty and indeed racism in the US.  Of course it is all the politicians fault and I think they really mean the Republican politicians since we all know the Democrats really care. 

[bcking 3,157]

24 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think like many, they are using numbers to support their narrative.  I know this is an opinion piece which like many others want to promote their "goodness" in showing that there is still poverty and indeed racism in the US.  Of course it is all the politicians fault and I think they really mean the Republican politicians since we all know the Democrats really care. 

For me it's a bit of yes and no. I've been able to find the "truth" behind their numbers and they can all be backed up by CDC data. HOWEVER - Their wording is clearly misleading and makes it difficult to understand. That being said, it doesn't appear that they are outright "bending" numbers, or making numbers up to "support their narrative". They are using true statistical data reported by the CDC. 

 

"Since the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign, the number of Americans in poverty has increased by 60% to 40.6 million"

 

Here is a CDC report that also essentially shows the same results graphically (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/P60-259.pdf) - Go to Page 12 (I'm having issues pasting the snapshot from adobe into here). 12% of the US Population in 1968 was 24 million people. 12.7% of the current US population, is around 41 million. That is about a 70% increase from 1968 in total numbers - Essentially what they suggest. 

 

"More than 95 million Americans (nearly 30 percent of the total population) are either in poverty or considered “low-income” (below twice the poverty line), using the Official Poverty Measure. That number rises to 43.5% (over 140 million people) when using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which takes into account federal assistance resources as well as critical out-of-pocket expenses."

 

The first number I found in the CDC report (link above). Go to page 17 and it has a chart of different "levels of poverty". The highest it goes up to is 2 times the poverty level, and the number is 95,245,000.

 

For the second number - In their document they have a hyperlink in the word "rises" which goes here (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2017/demo/p60-261/figure6.pdf). The graph is a little confusing however if you combine the percentage of the "total population" (first row) for the SPM measure from 0 - 2.0 (5 categories on the X-axis are income to poverty line threshold ratios), you would get 43.5%. That is 140 million people.  

 

So what they are actually saying is if you use "twice the poverty line" cut off with the statistics provided by the SPM (which is an official alternative measure reported by the CDC, the official report is below), you get 43.5% of the US Population.

 

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.pdf - The same data is shown in a table on Page 25. Combine the different poverty line thresholds (0 - 0.5, 0.5 - 1, 1 - 1.5, 1.5 - 2.0) and you get 43.4%.

 

-----------------------------------

 

So are they being misleading? Yes their text doesn't really accurately explain the data they are reporting. However do they actual have facts and statistics to support their numbers? It seems like they do. So it is more an issue with language and how they report things, and less with their actual methodology for coming up with their numbers. I honestly did think for awhile they were just making stuff up.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,499]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

For me it's a bit of yes and no (though at this point mostly yes, I agree with you that they are misleading). I've been able to find the "truth" behind their numbers and they can all be backed up by CDC data. HOWEVER - Their wording is clearly misleading and makes it difficult to understand. That being said, it doesn't appear that they are outright "bending" numbers, or making numbers up to "support their narrative". They are using true statistical data reported by the CDC. 

 

"Since the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign, the number of Americans in poverty has increased by 60% to 40.6 million"

 

Here is a CDC report that also essentially shows the same results graphically (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/P60-259.pdf) - Go to Page 12 (I'm having issues pasting the snapshot from adobe into here). 12% of the US Population in 1968 was 24 million people. 12.7% of the current US population, is around 41 million. That is about a 70% increase from 1968 in total numbers - Essentially what they suggest. 

 

"More than 95 million Americans (nearly 30 percent of the total population) are either in poverty or considered “low-income” (below twice the poverty line), using the Official Poverty Measure. That number rises to 43.5% (over 140 million people) when using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which takes into account federal assistance resources as well as critical out-of-pocket expenses."

 

The first number I found in the CDC report (link above). Go to page 17 and it has a chart of different "levels of poverty". The highest it goes up to is 2 times the poverty level, and the number is 95,245,000.

 

For the second number - In their document they have a hyperlink in the word "rises" which goes here (https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2017/demo/p60-261/figure6.pdf). The graph is a little confusing however if you combine the percentage of the "total population" (first row) for the SPM measure from 0 - 2.0 (5 categories on the X-axis are income to poverty line threshold ratios), you would get 43.5%. That is 140 million people.  

 

So what they are actually saying is if you use "twice the poverty line" cut off with the statistics provided by the SPM (which is an official alternative measure reported by the CDC, the official report is below), you get 43.5% of the US Population.

 

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.pdf - The same data is shown in a table on Page 25. Combine the different poverty line thresholds (0 - 0.5, 0.5 - 1, 1 - 1.5, 1.5 - 2.0) and you get 43.4%.

 

-----------------------------------

 

So are they being misleading? Yes their text doesn't really make sense. However do they actual have facts and statistics to support their numbers? It seems like they do. So it is more an issue with language and how they report things, and less with their actual methodology for coming up with their numbers. I honestly did think for awhile they were just making stuff up.

 

 

Words matter when a narrative is being promoted.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Words matter when a narrative is being promoted.

I agree and I'm not excusing them for that. However their numbers aren't created to "suit their narrative". Their narrative is constructed on valid statistics reported by the government. 

 

I haven't actually read the whole article and I have focused solely on their "fact reporting" so I can't really comment on what conclusions they draw from those numbers. Again while it isn't written in the clearest way possible, they are indeed reporting facts (or the closest we have to facts....census data). That is no different than you and I saying that the actual poverty measurement is 12.7%. They are all facts from the same source (The US Census...I think I said CDC earlier but Census is what I meant). They've clearly done a deep dive of that data instead of just looked at the single main number reported. That's a reasonable thing to do for an organization focused on combating poverty. 

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

Oh and as for the 'data' for the following statement -

 

"Since the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign, the number of Americans in poverty has increased by 60% to 40.6 million"

 

I'm struggling a little bit here. Another article I found (as a link on the SPM article website) had this chart (https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states)

 

 

If the poverty rate was say 23% in 1960 (Roughly from the graph), that would be around 41 million people back then (US population in 1960 was 180 million). 

 

That would mean the actual total number of people under the poverty line is about the same. I can't seem to find numbers that make the "Increased by 60%" work out.

 

Also that graph would not seem to support their number of 140 million using the SPM measurement. According to that article, the SPM measurement produces a poverty level of 14%, up only 1.3 percent from the official level of 12.7%

 

So their data continues to be strange...

what, a government program that used boatloads of tax dollars and didn't even show a result?  surely you jest!

[bcking 3,157]

13 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

what, a government program that used boatloads of tax dollars and didn't even show a result?  surely you jest!

My most recent post offers some additional information. I found the census data supporting their statements, though it took a little digging around and they could have been clearer from the get go. In the end the US Census data does support their numbers. 140 million people (43 percent of the US population) are below 2x the SPM measured poverty line. That can be compared to about 30% of the population that are below 2 times the concrete official poverty line.

 

I actually quite like the SPM model since I do agree that a strict "line in the sand" approach to poverty doesn't really work. There will be regional variations, and variations based on levels of support people receive. I didn't know that measure existed until this thread so at least I got something out of it.

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

50 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

what, a government program that used boatloads of tax dollars and didn't even show a result?  surely you jest!

I'm pretty sure he is serious.  But please refrain from calling him Shirley.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Where are you getting your economics from ?Obama brought us down to FULL EMPLOYMENT. 

That's why Trump's job growth numbers are relatively weak. 

 

 

What does "down to FULL EMPLOYMENT"  mean, exactly?  I remember how they changed the definition of unemployment during that administration to make the numbers reflect lower unemployment rates, but not familiar with your claim.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

Full employment is an economic term ( you can look it up if you don't know) .

And no they did not change the definition of unemployment. 

There are two different metrics for calculating unemployment. 

Both are equally valid, but may not have the same political weight. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Full employment is an economic term ( you can look it up if you don't know) .

And no they did not change the definition of unemployment. 

There are two different metrics for calculating unemployment. 

Both are equally valid, but may not have the same political weight. 

There are actually several methods.  But under Obama, they chose to use the one that says people who were looking for unemployment for a certain period of time were no longer counted as unemployed.  Sounds pretty false to me.  Unemployed is unemployed, whether or not they are actively seeking.

 

I know what the term means, but don't recall us ever getting close to it under your boy.

Edited April 16, 2018 by IDWAF

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

There are actually several methods.  But under Obama, they chose to use the one that says people who were looking for unemployment for a certain period of time were no longer counted as unemployed.  Sounds pretty false to me.  Unemployed is unemployed, whether or not they are actively seeking.

 

I know what the term means, but don't recall us ever getting close to it under your boy.

My father had a stroke 5 years ago that rendered him unable to practice medicine anymore. He became unemployed.

 

I don't think I would want an "unemployment" metric that includes him in that group, however. He isn't unemployed because of the lack of jobs, or the weakness of the economy. He is unemployed due to his health. (He's fine btw)

 

There are examples also that don't include health related. A woman may leave a job after a baby is born because the company doesn't offer maternity leave. They may be "unemployed by choice", and therefore may not be useful for inclusion in the statistic.

 

I think it all depends on what you are using the number for. If you are using it as a "measure of our economy", there are certain groups of people that are unemployed that shouldn't be included because their unemployment has nothing to do with hiring behaviors within their fields. If you just want a metric of how many people aren't currently working then fine, include everyone. But I'm not sure that number is very helpful. What would you use that number for? It has nothing to do with poverty or wealth, my father isn't working but is far wealthier than I am. So an "unemployment" rate that just includes everyone who is unemployed just isn't useful for much.

 

Now I do agree that removing people just because they've been looking for a long time is a pretty screwed up way to measure unemployment. My wife has been unemployed since she moved here in April 2017. She still has no job and it's been a year, but she has been actively looking and applying. Though I thought the actual measure was whether you stopped looking for a certain period of time (not just whether you were looking but unsuccessful). So they asked people if they were looking for work and if they weren't for the last 6 months or something then they are taken off the list. That is slightly better, though there reasons for "no longer looking" may also reflect a slowed economy. My wife may "stop looking" for a job soon not because she doesn't want to work in Oil and Gas anymore, but just because she is getting fed up with the lack of jobs.

Edited April 16, 2018 by bcking